By now I'm sure we're all aware John Edwards, former Democratic presidential candidate, has admitted to having an affair with a former campaign staffer. Linked is one of the better stories I've read on the affair from ABC News. For those of you who'd like something a little juicier, check out Anncoulter.com this week.
So now that we know he had an affair and lied about it, he's asking that the media leave him alone. Fat chance of that! Let's take a minute to remember some recent sex scandals in the world of politics:
-Elliot Spitzer paid for sex and had to resign.
-Bill Clinton lied about his affair and was nearly impeached.
-Jim McGreevey admitted his affair with a man and had to resign.
-Mark Foley didn't touch anyone and still had a media firestorm over his instant messages to congressional pages.
There are consequences when politicians have affairs. The main difference in this instance is that Edwards *almost* got away with it. He got away with it for two whole years before he was stupid enough to visit this woman's hotel room and get photographed by the National Enquirer. It probably would have blown over except for media warriors like Ann Coulter. And now Edwards thinks the media fire surrounding his public admission of his affair is somehow not fair
Huh.
It seems pretty "fair" every time it happens to a republican. It seems pretty "fair" when it's a same-sex affair. Edwards, you're a national politician on a national stage. You were a top contender for Vice President and you went on record saying anyone who has an affair shouldn't be trusted as president. Were you lying? Look, buddy, this is what happens when you're a national figure who has an affair. It happens to every other guy who's done it, and now it's happening to you. The best way to handle this would be to hang low, not appear in public for a while, and let the news cycles run out without feeding them sound bites about how they're wrong for covering your infidelity.
It's a rite of passage. At least the media is still interested in you at all. I wish you and your family the absolute best of luck in this matter, but it would be a lot smother if you took it like a man, like everyone else. You made this bed, and you're gonna have to lie in it for a few news cycles. But don't worry. The Olympics will probably steal your thunder.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
McCain: Two-faced Kitten?
I saw this little gem on the Countdown with Keith Olberman
The piece on the Olberman show was more or less comparing McCain two a cat born with two faces- they both have two opinions on the Bush tax cuts! Ha! How funny!
Just in case you had any doubt MSNBC had a liberal pundit, Olberman reminds us that comparing Obama to Paris Hilton is mean, but comparing McCain to a cat with a birth defect- Honey, clear off the mantle! We're gonna need somewhere to put that Pulitzer.
The piece on the Olberman show was more or less comparing McCain two a cat born with two faces- they both have two opinions on the Bush tax cuts! Ha! How funny!
Just in case you had any doubt MSNBC had a liberal pundit, Olberman reminds us that comparing Obama to Paris Hilton is mean, but comparing McCain to a cat with a birth defect- Honey, clear off the mantle! We're gonna need somewhere to put that Pulitzer.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
The Liberal Bias of the New York Times
Pundits like my girl Ann Coulter are always going on about the liberal bias of the New York Times. To see for myself I decided to begin reading the New York times to see if I noticed any bias. For the most part, the paper does an average job of presenting fair coverage of stories. The only marked bias I've seen that's really gotten be going, aside from the opinions pages, is the strange pro-illegal immigrants bias. Here are two prime examples of what I'm talking about:
In Cancer, With A Side of Beaurocracy the author details the awful plight of a poor little 9-year-old girl with skin cancer. This wouldn't be news except for that 1. She has an extremely rare form of cancer not often found in children 2. Her condition is so advanced she needs a life-saving operation right away 3. She gets denied the operation by her health insurance and 4. Her insurance denies her because it's state-provided and she's an illegal immigrant. The issue here is not that New York's Child Health Plus wouldn't cover this girl- it actually covers all children of illegal immigrants with tax dollars from LEGAL citizens-, it's that somehow in the paper chase she got denied coverage. Her illegal immigrant mother even had the nerve to go on record saying the country she resides in illegally didn't provide a free operation to her child fast enough. I'm not saying the child doesn't deserve an operation- I have a heart, I'm glad she's getting the care she needs, and I don't think she deserves to die just because she's here illegally. But I do think the article had a very marked bias. It would have been nice if it discussed, even just for a minute, how legal citizens are not necessarily entitled to care, so it's silly for illegals to think they should be entitled to it.
And today, in Mexican's Death Bares a Town's Ethnic Tension, the whole premise of the article is biased. It tries to make the case that the beating and subsequent death of an illegal immigrant by four high school boys was somehow representative of how the entire town hates illegal immigrants. The problem is that the quotes in the article and the facts from the town prove it's just not true. The town's illegal immigrant community is trying to turn these kids into whipping boys for ever hate crime ever committed. This wasn't a hate crime. Three of the kids were underage. They don't deserve to be tried as adults for this. The immigrants are trying to say they'll get off easy because they're good kids and the person that died was just an illegal, not someone protected by US law, and I'm thinking... yes. Exactly. If you want to be protected by US laws you should try becoming a US citizen, and then you'll get all the protections you want. If Mexico wants to try these kids for the death of one of their own, that's up to Mexico. I'm not saying what the kids did was wrong- it was- but I don't think they deserve to have their lives ruined over some immigrants wanting a death avenged.
The problem with these articles is not with the stories themselves- poor immigrant children don't deserve to die, and it's not okay to kill someone (even if they are illegal)- it's with the way the articles are written. They both fail to tell the other side of the story, the story about how CHP is generous for even extending illegals care, and the part where illegal immigrants are not necessarily protected by the laws of a country they don't belong to.
In Cancer, With A Side of Beaurocracy the author details the awful plight of a poor little 9-year-old girl with skin cancer. This wouldn't be news except for that 1. She has an extremely rare form of cancer not often found in children 2. Her condition is so advanced she needs a life-saving operation right away 3. She gets denied the operation by her health insurance and 4. Her insurance denies her because it's state-provided and she's an illegal immigrant. The issue here is not that New York's Child Health Plus wouldn't cover this girl- it actually covers all children of illegal immigrants with tax dollars from LEGAL citizens-, it's that somehow in the paper chase she got denied coverage. Her illegal immigrant mother even had the nerve to go on record saying the country she resides in illegally didn't provide a free operation to her child fast enough. I'm not saying the child doesn't deserve an operation- I have a heart, I'm glad she's getting the care she needs, and I don't think she deserves to die just because she's here illegally. But I do think the article had a very marked bias. It would have been nice if it discussed, even just for a minute, how legal citizens are not necessarily entitled to care, so it's silly for illegals to think they should be entitled to it.
And today, in Mexican's Death Bares a Town's Ethnic Tension, the whole premise of the article is biased. It tries to make the case that the beating and subsequent death of an illegal immigrant by four high school boys was somehow representative of how the entire town hates illegal immigrants. The problem is that the quotes in the article and the facts from the town prove it's just not true. The town's illegal immigrant community is trying to turn these kids into whipping boys for ever hate crime ever committed. This wasn't a hate crime. Three of the kids were underage. They don't deserve to be tried as adults for this. The immigrants are trying to say they'll get off easy because they're good kids and the person that died was just an illegal, not someone protected by US law, and I'm thinking... yes. Exactly. If you want to be protected by US laws you should try becoming a US citizen, and then you'll get all the protections you want. If Mexico wants to try these kids for the death of one of their own, that's up to Mexico. I'm not saying what the kids did was wrong- it was- but I don't think they deserve to have their lives ruined over some immigrants wanting a death avenged.
The problem with these articles is not with the stories themselves- poor immigrant children don't deserve to die, and it's not okay to kill someone (even if they are illegal)- it's with the way the articles are written. They both fail to tell the other side of the story, the story about how CHP is generous for even extending illegals care, and the part where illegal immigrants are not necessarily protected by the laws of a country they don't belong to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
